Tafsir of Maryam 19:90

(تَكَادُ السَّمَاوَاتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ) — in the position of an adjective for "that [saying]," or an inauguration [of a new sentence] to clarify the gravity of the matter in its intensity and terror. "Al-tafattur" (to crack/burst), according to many, is splitting absolutely. According to what is indicated by Al-Raghib, it is splitting longitudinally, as he interpreted "al-fatr"—from which this is derived—as splitting in that manner. However, the contexts of usage dictate that it should not be restricted to what was mentioned.

Yes, it has been said: It implies that "al-fatr" is an attribute of solid bodies; for it is said, "a cracked (maftur) vessel," but it is not said, "a cracked (maftur) garment," rather, "torn (mashquq)." In my view, this is a matter of convention regarding rejection and acceptance. Upon this, the attribution of tafattur (bursting) to the heavens and inshiqaq (splitting) to the earth in His saying: (وَتَنْشَقُّ الْأَرْضُ) contains an indication that the heaven is more solid than the earth.

The intensification indicated by the form tafa''ul is said to be in the verb, as it is more appropriate for the context. Others say it is in the object [of the verb]. This is supported by the fact that Abu 'Amr, Ibn 'Amir, Hamzah, Abu Bakr from 'Asim, Ya'qub, Abu Bahriyyah, Al-Zuhri, Talhah, Humayd, Al-Yazidi, and Abu 'Ubayd read (يَنْفَطِرْنَ), the imperfect of in-fatar. The compatibility of the two readings necessitates this, and because the passive infa'al was chosen in tanshaqqu al-ardu (the earth splits), where there is no multiplicity in the object. For this reason, (وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ) was interpreted as the regions and the like, as will come later, if Allah wills.

Some reconciled the difference in form—on the premise that the intensification is in the verb—by stating that the heavens, because they are sanctified and have never disobeyed Allah in any way, do not have the capacity for disobedience, unlike the earth. Thus, they are affected by the enormity of the sin in a way the earth is not.

Ibn Mas'ud read (يَتَصَدَّعْنَ). Al-Bahr stated: This should be considered an interpretation, not a reading, because it contradicts the script of the consensus Mushaf and because of the report from the reliable narrators that he read it like the majority. It is not hidden from you that in this, regardless, there is support for those who argue that fatr (cracking) is an attribute of solid bodies, based on what is in Al-Qamus—that a sad' (crack) is a split in a solid thing.

Nafi', Al-Kisa'i, Abu Haywah, and Al-A'mash read (يَكَادُ) with a ya at the beginning.

(وَتَخِرُّ الْجِبَالُ هَدًّا) — [meaning] to fall and crumble. "Haddan" is accusative as an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq) for "takhirru" (fall), because it carries the meaning of "crumbling," as we indicated. Ibn al-Nahhas leaned toward this. It is also permissible that it be an absolute object for a suppressed verb "tahuddu" (it crumbles), and the sentence [thus] is in the position of a state (hal). It is said: It is a verbal noun meaning a passive participle, accusative as a state of the transitive "hadda," meaning "crumbled." It is also permitted that it be an object for which the action is done (maf'ul lahu), meaning "because they crumble," on the premise that it is from the intransitive "hadda" (to collapse). Its usage as an intransitive verb is explicitly stated by Abu Hayyan, who is the Imam of language and grammar, so there is no weight given to those who deny it. In that case, the "hadd" is the action of the mountains, so the subject of the verbal noun and the verb for which the reason is given coincide. It is also said: It is not their action, but rather when someone crumbles them, the crumbling happens to them, so it is correct to be an object for which the action is done.

The statement establishes that this is a "kinning" (making close). The "kayduda" (nearness) therein is on its literal sense, referring to the proximity of a thing. Al-Akhfash interpreted it here, and in His saying: (أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا), as "willing." He cited as evidence the poet's saying: "It was near (kādat) and I was near (kudtu), and that is the best of willing / If only the time of passion would return to what has passed." But he has no proof in it.

The meaning is: The horror of that abominable word and its enormity is such that, if it were imagined in a tangible form, these massive celestial bodies would not be able to bear it and their parts would scatter from its intensity. Or, that the due of that word, if those massive inanimate objects understood it, would be to burst, split, and fall from its atrociousness. It is also said: The meaning is that the Resurrection is near, for these things will be real on the Day of Resurrection. It is also said: The speech is a metonymy for Allah's anger at the one who says that word, and that were it not for His forbearance—Glory be to Him—that would occur, and the speaker and others would perish; meaning, "I was near to doing that out of anger, had it not been for My forbearance."

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that he said: "Shirk (polytheism) has caused the heavens, the earth, the mountains, and all creatures to tremble, except for the two weights (mankind and jinn), and they were near to perishing from it out of veneration for Allah." In this is an affirmation for these bodies and substances that is befitting them, and what relates to that has preceded.

In Al-Durr al-Manthur, in the discussion of this verse, it is recorded that Ahmad in Al-Zuhd, Ibn al-Mubarak, Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu al-Shaykh in Al-'Azamah, Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Tabarani, and Al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman, by way of 'Awn from Ibn Mas'ud, said: "The mountain calls to the mountain by its name: 'O So-and-so, did anyone remembering Allah pass by you today?' If it says: 'Yes,' it rejoices." 'Awn said: "Do they not hear falsehood? When it is said [that the heavens burst], they do not hear the good? They are more attentive to the good."

Ibn al-Munir said: A meaning appears to me in the verse that I have not seen for others, which is that Allah—Exalted is He—has used a metaphor for the indication of these bodies on His existence—Exalted be He—as characterized by the attributes of perfection that are incumbent upon Him—Glory be to Him—by making them glorify Him with His praise. Allah says: (تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالْأَرْضُ وَمَنْ فِيهِنَّ وَإِنْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ). Among what the heavens, the earth, and the mountains—nay, every atom of their atoms—have indicated is that Allah—Exalted is He—is sanctified above the attribution of a son to Him. In everything there is a sign that indicates that He is One. Thus, whoever believes in the attribution of a son to Him—Exalted is He—has nullified the indication of these existents on the transcendence and sanctification of Allah. Therefore, the nullification of their forms through crumbling, bursting, and splitting was used as a metaphor for the nullification of the spirit of the indication for which they were created.

He was objected to by saying that existents only indicate a Creator who is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Wise due to the indication of the effect on the effector, and power on the empowered; and the perfection of the work indicates knowledge and wisdom. As for their indication of Oneness, there is no basis for it, and the like is not proven by poetry. He was refuted by saying that if they did not indicate it, the argument of "mutual obstruction" (tamanu') would be required, as verified by Mawla al-Khayali in his marginalia on the explanation of the 'Aqa'id of Al-Nasafi by the Second Allamah.

Some said: They indicate the enormity of His status—Exalted is He—and that nothing resembles Him or comes near Him, so it follows that He has no partner or son, because if He were like that, He would be a peer—Exalted be He. For this reason, this indication was expressed as glorification (tasbih) and transcendence (tanzih).

Perhaps what we have indicated is better and more precise. The intent of the one who attributes a son to Him—Exalted be He—is nothing but shirk. Contemplate this. The majority are of the view that the speech is to clarify the hideousness of that word, in the sense that if the inanimate objects understood it, they would deem it too great and crumble from its hideousness. This is a common method for the Arabs. The poet said: "When the news of Al-Zubayr arrived, the figures of the city and the rugged mountains bowed down." Another said: "The heart of Mecca became shivering, as if the earth had no Hisham in it." Another said: "Do you not see a clear crack in the sky... [regarding] Ibn al-Layth al-Harith ibn Hisham." And others besides these. This is a type of hyperbole, and it is acceptable when it is conjoined with a word like "kada" (near), as in the noble verse. This has been explained in its place.